'No God' campaign draws complaint

[gdnp]

Things are really hopping over by Free Republic

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2166017/posts

I liked this comment:

Now, do they have the guts to buy signs that say “There probably is no Allah” and put those in the muslim areas of town?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Now, do they have the guts to buy signs that say “There probably is no Allah” and put those in the muslim areas of town?

It's amazing how many fundamentalists can't grasp that 'Allah' is just another way to write 'God'. It's as if a bunch of Republicans failed to get that 'Dubya' and 'Bush' were the same person.

Boggles the mind.

 

[gdnp]

It's amazing how many fundamentalists can't grasp that 'Allah' is just another way to write 'God'. It's as if a bunch of Republicans failed to get that 'Dubya' and 'Bush' were the same person.

Boggles the mind.

Although there could be no Allah and still be a Yahweh.

 

[thaiboxerken]

A "Gross misconduct" clause in a contract usually covers stuff like wilful damage to company property, theft, physical assault, working under the influence of alcohol and drugs...

And usually it also covers actually going to work/ doing your job. I agree that the company took the smartest approach, but only from a PR stance. If they fired this guy because of this incident, it would be a PR nightmare. If the guy refused to drive the bus because he didn't like a Captain Crunch advert on the bus, he'd be fired and there would be no news about it. It's sad that religion gets treated as a sacred cow, but that's life.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

It's amazing how many fundamentalists can't grasp that 'Allah' is just another way to write 'God'.

Contrariwise. Different figments of different imaginations. Not unlike there being different Jesuses within Christianity broadly defined.

Furthermore, when you say 'Allah' (in English) you're adding exotic atmosphere.

 

[Darat]

And usually it also covers actually going to work/ doing your job.


...snip...

Actually it is very unlikely to do so, in fact I've never seen an employment contract in which that would be classed as gross misconduct. It is of course very likely to be a breach of contract but a not all breaches of employment contract are gross misconduct.

If I was to sack anyone (religious/vegan/game fan) for something like this without first having made attempts to resolve the situation in a reasonable manner I am opening myself and my company up to an industrial tribunal or other legal action.

Now yes of course there is the silliness in the legal system that treats religious beliefs differently to other beliefs even in employment law but I can't see where any of those would come into play in this instance.

 

[Lucky]

Well it depends on the employer but failure to comply with lawful and reasonable instructions is generally regarded as gross misconduct. Provided the correct procedures are carried out I don't think he would have any redress if fired.

That is completely wrong, and you are misleading the non-Brits. I'm glad to say that workers here have more rights than you seem to think. If the company had summarily dismissed him then they would certainly have been contravening both their own binding disciplinary policy and employment law.

The whole point of a disciplinary policy is that unacceptable conduct (incompetence, disobedience, inappropriate behaviour etc.) must be dealt with in a consistent and proportionate way. The level of disciplinary action must correspond to the seriousness of the offence (as defined in the policy). Any offence short of gross misconduct has to be handled by formal warnings; ignoring a warning is a more serious offence than the original one (i.e. you can be dismissed after one instance of gross misconduct, or a history of lesser offences).

The disciplinary policy has to include an indication of what constitutes gross misconduct (though it doesn't have to be watertight), and it most certainly won't include a single instance of refusing to obey an instruction for clearly-stated reasons. (Though that wouldn't apply to an issue of safety or negligence.)

Here is a typical list (from my employer's disciplinary policy) of actionable offences, specifying which ones can amount to gross misconduct:

The following are examples (the list is not exhaustive) of behaviour or conduct which may lead to disciplinary action:

• misuse or unauthorised use of computing and other equipment;
• failure to comply with safety regulations and safe working practices;
• breaches of rules about confidentiality and security;
• harassment or workplace bullying
• wilful refusal to carry out reasonable instructions.
• a breach of University policies

A number of minor offences may amount to a more serious offence. Failure to respond to warnings about misconduct or performance may ultimately lead to dismissal.

The following are examples (the list is not exhaustive) of misconduct which will lead to disciplinary action which may result in summary dismissal:

• theft, whether of University property or of the property of fellow employees, visitors or students;
• fraud, including falsification of claims for earnings and expenses;
• malicious damage whether to University property or of the property of fellow employees, visitors or students;
• fighting or physical assault whilst on University business;
• serious or persistent sexual or racial harassment;
• a serious omission or act of negligence in the performance of duties;
• pursuing employment elsewhere including self-employment whilst on paid or unpaid sick leave.
• non-accidental importation of pornography, including downloading via computers.

Note: "wilful refusal to carry out reasonable instructions" is not included under gross misconduct.

I repeat: the company could not have dismissed him summarily, and that has nothing to do with the religious belief aspect of the case. He probably could have been dismissed (after an escalating series of disciplinary actions, according to the policy) if the company had been intransigent and refused to accommodate his wishes, and he had continued to refuse to obey instructions.

The compromise seems perfectly reasonable to me. I also think it's between the driver and his employer, and if they're both satisfied it's a non-problem.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Lucky: Makes sense to me. And while it may not be law in the USA, such rules are not unheard of as part of union contracts. Yes there are still unions here.

 

[Francesca R]

And usually it also covers actually going to work/ doing your job.

Wrong. And if you don't know about UK employment law and terminology, maybe it would be better if you didn't write about it.

 

[Chaos]

Wrong. And if you don't know about UK employment law and terminology, maybe it would be better if you didn't write about it.

Let me see if I get this right.

This guy, the bus driver, has, upon taking employment with the bus company, signed a contract, which said something like "Employee will drive the bus that Company assigns him to drive". The contract presumably said nothing about "Employee can refuse any assignment that offends his sensibilities, and this will have no consequences for him"; correct me if UK employment contracts usually do have such a clause.
Now this guy refused to do just that, because he does not want to.
So, what leg could this guy possible have to stand on, from a legal point of view? He refuses to honor his side of the contract, for reasons which were not stated in the contract to sufficient for this!

 

[Francesca R]

Let me see if I get this right. [ . . . ]

See earlier links / quotes about what "gross misconduct" and "summary dismissal" are about.

 

[Lucky]

thaiboxerken, Chaos and the rest of the non-Brits here who are (understandably) ignorant of UK employment law:
What on earth is the point of arguing on the basis of your fantasy of what you (presumably) would like the law to be? Several people have tried to explain the facts - see e.g. my previous post for a detailed explanation.

Also see the Acas site:

How does the three-step discipline and dismissal procedure operate?
In step one you must give a written statement to the employee setting out why you have decided to take disciplinary action.
In step two you must meet the employee, who has the right to be accompanied by his or her colleague or union representative. You should state your case, let the employee respond and then, after the meeting, give the employee your decision. You should explain that the employee may appeal against your decision.
In step three the employee may appeal against your decision and choose to be accompanied at the appeal meeting, which should ideally be heard by a different or more senior manager. You should inform the employee of the decision of the appeal. The employee must appeal to complete the statutory procedure.
...
The modified statutory discipline and dismissal procedure is a two-step procedure. In step one you write to the employee setting out the reasons for dismissal and give the employee the right of appeal. Step two will be set in motion if the employee wishes to meet you to appeal against the dismissal. The modified two-step procedure should be used only in a very small number of gross misconduct cases where the employee's conduct would justify summary dismissal. Would a dismissal be fair if I used the statutory three-step discipline and dismissal procedure? Not necessarily. You should take disciplinary action which is appropriate for the alleged offence. For example, if the offence required a final written warning and you used the three-step procedure to dismiss the employee, then the dismissal could be judged by an employment tribunal to be unfair.

Anyway, here is the explanation again:
Under UK law, an employment contract is a special type of contract, and is subject to specific laws. Employees have rights (including the right not to be sacked on the employer's whim which, sadly, you don't seem to have in the US). A breach of contract by an employee does not automatically give his employer the right to sack him, and nor should it. (For example, turning up five minutes late for work, once, is a breach of contract if your contract stipulates a start time.)

Any disciplinary action (up to and including summary dismissal) must be in accordance with the employer's written disciplinary policy, which must be shown to all employees. Gross misconduct (for which you can be summarily dismissed) has to be defined in the policy. This definition doesn't have to be exhaustive, but an action deemed to justify summary dismissal must be in keeping with the definition.

It is extremely unlikely that a single instance of refusing to obey an instruction (no safety issue being involved) would fall within the definition. It would be way out of line with any disciplinary policy I've ever heard of, and may not be regarded as reasonable if the issue went to employment tribunal.

There's no doubt that the driver committed a disciplinary offence, and no-one here is arguing otherwise. We aren't told whether he was disciplined, but he may have been given a formal warning (verbal or written), to remain in his records (this would make it easier to sack him for a subsequent offence that falls short of gross misconduct).

UK law also requires both parties to make reasonable attempts to resolve a dispute. If either fails to do so, they may lose their case at employment tribunal. In accordance with this law, the company and the driver reached a suitable compromise. If the driver had refused the compromise then he would almost certainly not succeed in an unfair dismissal case.

To summarise:

• No, the driver does not have the right to decide which buses he drives.
• In refusing an instruction, he committed a disciplinary offence, and could be disciplined.
• However, he (almost certainly) could not be summarily dismissed, because UK employment law would not regard it as a serious enough single offence to fall under gross misconduct.
• Instead, the employer has to follow their own disciplinary policy (as well as the statutory three-step discipline and dismissal procedure if they want to sack him).
• In a dispute of this nature, employer and employee are expected to make reasonable efforts resolve it - which they did.

Clear enough?

 

[Francesca R]

Clear enough?

It remains my speculation, but what seems to be irksome to some might not be that UK law gives an employee above-zero bargaining power, but that this news story is revealing too much tolerance for religion for their liking

 

[Chaos]

Clear enough.

My point was - and is - that the employee intentionally failed to fulfill his contract, not just by, to use your example, showing up five minutes late for work, but by saying, "I´m not going to do my job, EVER, as long as...", where, I assume, the condition because of which he refused was not a recognized, permissible reason to do so. (If, for example, he had refused to drive that bus because he knew the bus´ brakes to be defective, that would be an example of a permissible reason to refuse - or so I assume).

My point is, ultimately this case should end with one of two outcomes:
1) the employee resumes driving any bus the company assigns him to drive, regardless of what ads are displayed on it,
or 2) the employee loses his job.
I mean, what kind of legal system is this in which an employee can refuse to do his job, and still keep his job, or can make his employer jump through arbitrary hoops to make him do his job?

 

[Francesca R]

I believe that the outcome is that the driver keeps his job and does not have to drive an atheist bus unless that is the only one available--and both parties agreed to that. So you're wrong on your pair of scenarios.

Poor little massive corporations being forced to dance to the whim of the little guy. Bloody typical eh? Socialise the profits and capitalise the losses! No-one will ever set up a private firm in the UK.

<smirk>

 

[Rasmus]

Poor little massive corporations being forced to dance to the whim of the little guy.

Actually ... yes!

Again, the bus driver is unreasonable. If he has moral or religious objections to driving buses with certain (perfectly legal!) ads on them, there is a simple solution for him: Find another job.

The company is of course free to let their employees blackmail them, but I wouldn't do that. Not for the religious, not for an atheist, not for members of political parties and not for vegetarians.

 

[mummymonkey]

Spoke to a couple of bus drivers (on another forum, I don't actually know any bus drivers) about this and opinion was split. One said it was no problem, just get another bus; the other said the guy could have no complaints if he was sacked but that he probably would just get a warning. So apologies for misleading anyone.
As to the contents of the advert I couldn't care less. I worked in customer service for ten years and any employee refusing lawful instructions that resulted in a failure of customer sevice was delt with very harshly. I'd feel the same if it were an atheist refusing to drive a bus with a religious message.

 

[shadron]

It's not just Green who has complained though. There's also been a complaint from a "distinguished religious affairs commentator". Unfortunately it's a rather dumb complaint. Not only does it rely on the anthropic fallacy, but from the comments on that article, and also this one, it appears that it quotes a number of scientists out of context, and that it has been cut and pasted from a creationist website.

Heh, heh. One comment on the Distinguished Religious Affairs Commentator's message:

What on earth lead him [the DRAC] to believe that this was a scientific advert or that all adverts must conform to scientific standards? According to the religionists I read on CiF, science tells us nothing about god. Anyway, why is a bloke who is a journalist, not a scientist, complaining about an ad run by a comedy writer on the grounds it is not scientific? I think he is just taking the piss.

 

[biomorph]

I believe that the outcome is that the driver keeps his job and does not have to drive an atheist bus unless that is the only one available--and both parties agreed to that.

<smirk>

With the overwhelming amount of donations funding the adverts I'm sure that it wouldn't be difficult to get a lot more buses in that drivers depot to carry the advert.
LOL

That'd scupper him.

IMO I think this is where things need to change, if he won't drive the bus alloted to him then he gets fired.

I know that isn't what has happened, fair enough, but there you go.

Pandering to this type of well, blackmail, only makes the religious expect special rights over others.

If he was fired or even suspended, then perhaps he'd reconsider his options.

It would wake up anyone else trying such similar stunts too, and good job too.

There's plenty of bus drivers around.

Its not like he can see the advert from the drivers seat.

Regardless of the vagarities of employment law in the UK, if he doesn't want the job of driving a bus regardless of what's on the paid for ad, which contributes to his wages, then he obviously doesn't need the wages. So he obviously needs to be told to go home permanently.

That would send IMO the message to these eejits that one's belief is personal and optional, and nothing to do with your job in the real world. Which it isn't.

 

[Lucky]

It remains my speculation, but what seems to be irksome to some might not be that UK law gives an employee above-zero bargaining power, but that this news story is revealing too much tolerance for religion for their liking

That's probably true (though I've noticed before that some US posters are shocked at the notion that workers everywhere aren't necessarily treated as cattle, or robots). It seems that thaiboxerken, Chaos etc. fail to realise that the UK is (on the whole) a pretty tolerant place, and made the understandable (but invalid) assumption that this must be a case of special privileges for religious beliefs. (I have the impression they are now having trouble backing down.)

My point was - and is - that the employee intentionally failed to fulfill his contract, not just by, to use your example, showing up five minutes late for work, but by saying, "I´m not going to do my job, EVER, as long as..."
...
I mean, what kind of legal system is this in which an employee can refuse to do his job, and still keep his job, or can make his employer jump through arbitrary hoops to make him do his job?

It didn't read to me at all as though he was being intentionally disruptive. There seems to have been nothing premeditated about his action - he was taken by surprise, genuinely shocked and distressed, and walked off his shift in an emotional reaction. As I have made clear, he could certainly be subject to disciplinary action for that - but short of summary dismissal.

It's actually very relevant whether he was genuinely hurt and distressed at being asked to spend his working day doing something abhorrent to his beliefs or, alternatively, wished to disrupt his employer's business in order to make a point of principle. In the first case, the employer would be expected to at least explore the possibility of accommodating his wishes in some non-disruptive way; in the second, they certainly wouldn't. You really need to grasp that distinction in order to understand the intention behind this aspect of UK employment law.

I want to explain why, despite how it appears to non-Brits, this does not seem to be a case of special privileges for religion. Let's try a hypothetical example that has nothing to do with religion.

Suppose, during the miners' strike a bus company had a contract to transport police to oppose the pickets. A driver informs her boss that she objects to driving the police coaches.

Scenario 1 - she asks to speak to her manager before the week's rota is drawn up:
"I don't want to drive the police coaches, because it's causing problems at home. My husband, father and brother are on the picket lines, and I feel that they regard me as a scab. The atmosphere at home is very strained, and it's causing me serious anxiety and stress. I'll drive a coach if you can't make other arrangements, but I request that you find me alternative duties if possible."

Scenario 2 - she arrives for her shift, and without warning refuses to drive the police coach, making it difficult or impossible for the company to fulfil its contract to the police:
"As a member of the Socialist Workers Party it's against my revolutionary anti-capitalist principles to assist the police capitalist lackeys against my fellow workers. I wish to prevent or obstruct the company from transporting the police to the picket lines, so I am refusing to drive the coach."

In scenario 1, the company would be expected to either offer some compromise, or explain in writing their decision not to do so (leaving aside the complication that employment law was very different in 1984). If she then persisted in her refusal, disciplinary action could begin.

Even in scenario 2, it's unlikely she could have been summarily dismissed (again, assuming current law). Probably the disciplinary action would begin with a final written warning (the most serious option short of summary dismissal), and she would be dismissed for a further offence.

And here's a real-life example:
Many years ago I had a temporary job as a school science technician. It turned out that the school had an arrangement with a local pharmaceutical research laboratory: out of public-spiritedness, the lab donated freshly (and specially) killed rats for dissection lessons. It would be an occasional duty to call the lab, request them to kill however many rats we wanted, go and collect the rats, and set up and clear away the dissection equipment (and corpses).

Now, I am certainly not opposed to all animal experimentation (and I detest rats!), but I do not believe that the (highly questionable) benefit to schoolchildren of performing their own, individual dissection is sufficient justification for killing a mammal. I had a moral objection to being party to it, and informed my head of department. Absolutely no problem at all. My colleague didn't share my moral objections, and was perfectly happy to do all this part of the work herself. My boss assured me that I would not be asked to take any part in the ordering, preparation and clearing up (though I had only asked to be excused from ordering the killings and fetching the corpses).

I suppose you and thaiboxerken would claim that I could, and should, have been summarily dismissed. If so, you are certainly wrong in your first belief (and, I would argue, in your second).